用于桥墩周围湍流流场测量的Vectrino剖面仪阵列操作参数的校准和验证-第二部分

IF 1.8 Q3 MECHANICS Fluids Pub Date : 2023-06-29 DOI:10.3390/fluids8070199
Gordon Gilja, Robert Fliszar, Antonija Harasti, Manousos Valyrakis
{"title":"用于桥墩周围湍流流场测量的Vectrino剖面仪阵列操作参数的校准和验证-第二部分","authors":"Gordon Gilja, Robert Fliszar, Antonija Harasti, Manousos Valyrakis","doi":"10.3390/fluids8070199","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"High-frequency velocimeters used for flow measurements during laboratory experiments allow the user to select the range for several operation parameters to set up the instrument for optimal velocity measurement. The discrepancies between velocity measurements collected with different instrument configurations can be significant, depending on the flume bed configuration and boundary conditions. The aim of this paper is to quantify the differences in flow velocity profiles measured with Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter Profilers (ADVPs) configured using a combination of profiling parameters: Ping Algorithm (PA), Transmit Pulse Size (TPS), and Cell Size (CS). Whereas in Part I of this research, the goal was to identify the optimal probe configuration for downstream measurement of the complex hydraulic structure (pier protected with riprap) based on a match of the flow rate with measurements from other instruments, in this paper, effect of distinct probe configuration on velocity profile and turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) is demonstrated. Differences between ADVPs’ configurations were analyzed through sensitivity analysis with the intention to calculate and compare any discrepancies in the velocity measurements for all the three measured velocity components: streamwise u, spanwise v and vertical w collected on two characteristic flume cross-sections. The results show that each parameter change has a significant effect on the measured values of each velocity component when compared to the Target Configuration (TC). The largest root-mean-square-error (RMSE) is observed when TPS is changed, followed by CS and PA. Absolute RMSE calculated for TPS change from 4 mm to 1 mm is, on average, 6.30 cm/s, 0.90 cm/s, and 0.82 cm/s for velocity components u, v and w, respectively. Absolute RMSE calculated for CS change from 1 mm to 4 mm is, on average, 4.49 cm/s, 0.88 cm/s, and 0.71 cm/s for velocity components u, v and w, respectively. Absolute RMSE calculated for PA change from Adaptive to Max interval is, on average, 4.04 cm/s, 0.63 cm/s, and 0.68 cm/s for velocity components u, v and w, respectively. For a change in all parameters, RMSE is greater for the cross-section downstream of the pier than for the approach cross-section: on average, 90%, 57% and 54% for a change in the PA, TPS, and CS, respectively.","PeriodicalId":12397,"journal":{"name":"Fluids","volume":"11 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-29","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Calibration and Verification of Operation Parameters for an Array of Vectrino Profilers Configured for Turbulent Flow Field Measurement around Bridge Piers—Part II\",\"authors\":\"Gordon Gilja, Robert Fliszar, Antonija Harasti, Manousos Valyrakis\",\"doi\":\"10.3390/fluids8070199\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"High-frequency velocimeters used for flow measurements during laboratory experiments allow the user to select the range for several operation parameters to set up the instrument for optimal velocity measurement. The discrepancies between velocity measurements collected with different instrument configurations can be significant, depending on the flume bed configuration and boundary conditions. The aim of this paper is to quantify the differences in flow velocity profiles measured with Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter Profilers (ADVPs) configured using a combination of profiling parameters: Ping Algorithm (PA), Transmit Pulse Size (TPS), and Cell Size (CS). Whereas in Part I of this research, the goal was to identify the optimal probe configuration for downstream measurement of the complex hydraulic structure (pier protected with riprap) based on a match of the flow rate with measurements from other instruments, in this paper, effect of distinct probe configuration on velocity profile and turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) is demonstrated. Differences between ADVPs’ configurations were analyzed through sensitivity analysis with the intention to calculate and compare any discrepancies in the velocity measurements for all the three measured velocity components: streamwise u, spanwise v and vertical w collected on two characteristic flume cross-sections. The results show that each parameter change has a significant effect on the measured values of each velocity component when compared to the Target Configuration (TC). The largest root-mean-square-error (RMSE) is observed when TPS is changed, followed by CS and PA. Absolute RMSE calculated for TPS change from 4 mm to 1 mm is, on average, 6.30 cm/s, 0.90 cm/s, and 0.82 cm/s for velocity components u, v and w, respectively. Absolute RMSE calculated for CS change from 1 mm to 4 mm is, on average, 4.49 cm/s, 0.88 cm/s, and 0.71 cm/s for velocity components u, v and w, respectively. Absolute RMSE calculated for PA change from Adaptive to Max interval is, on average, 4.04 cm/s, 0.63 cm/s, and 0.68 cm/s for velocity components u, v and w, respectively. For a change in all parameters, RMSE is greater for the cross-section downstream of the pier than for the approach cross-section: on average, 90%, 57% and 54% for a change in the PA, TPS, and CS, respectively.\",\"PeriodicalId\":12397,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Fluids\",\"volume\":\"11 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.8000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-29\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Fluids\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.3390/fluids8070199\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"MECHANICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Fluids","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3390/fluids8070199","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MECHANICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

高频测速仪用于实验室实验期间的流量测量,允许用户选择几个操作参数的范围,以设置仪器的最佳速度测量。根据水槽结构和边界条件的不同,不同仪器配置收集的流速测量值之间的差异可能是显著的。本文的目的是量化用多普勒测速分析器(advp)测量的流速剖面的差异,这些剖面参数包括:Ping算法(PA)、传输脉冲大小(TPS)和单元大小(CS)。在本研究的第一部分中,目标是根据流量与其他仪器的测量结果相匹配,确定用于复杂水工结构(有碎石保护的桥墩)下游测量的最佳探头配置,而在本文中,不同探头配置对速度剖面和湍流动能(TKE)的影响进行了论证。通过敏感性分析分析advp配置之间的差异,目的是计算和比较在两个特征水槽截面上收集的所有三个测量速度分量:流向u,展向v和垂直w的速度测量结果的差异。结果表明,与目标配置(TC)相比,每次参数变化对各速度分量的测量值都有显著影响。TPS变化时均方根误差(RMSE)最大,CS次之,PA次之。速度分量u、v和w的TPS从4 mm到1 mm变化的绝对RMSE平均值分别为6.30 cm/s、0.90 cm/s和0.82 cm/s。速度分量u、v和w从1 mm到4 mm CS变化的绝对RMSE平均值分别为4.49 cm/s、0.88 cm/s和0.71 cm/s。速度分量u、v和w从Adaptive到Max区间PA变化的绝对RMSE均值分别为4.04 cm/s、0.63 cm/s和0.68 cm/s。对于所有参数的变化,桥墩下游截面的RMSE大于接近截面:PA、TPS和CS的变化平均分别为90%、57%和54%。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Calibration and Verification of Operation Parameters for an Array of Vectrino Profilers Configured for Turbulent Flow Field Measurement around Bridge Piers—Part II
High-frequency velocimeters used for flow measurements during laboratory experiments allow the user to select the range for several operation parameters to set up the instrument for optimal velocity measurement. The discrepancies between velocity measurements collected with different instrument configurations can be significant, depending on the flume bed configuration and boundary conditions. The aim of this paper is to quantify the differences in flow velocity profiles measured with Acoustic Doppler Velocimeter Profilers (ADVPs) configured using a combination of profiling parameters: Ping Algorithm (PA), Transmit Pulse Size (TPS), and Cell Size (CS). Whereas in Part I of this research, the goal was to identify the optimal probe configuration for downstream measurement of the complex hydraulic structure (pier protected with riprap) based on a match of the flow rate with measurements from other instruments, in this paper, effect of distinct probe configuration on velocity profile and turbulent kinetic energy (TKE) is demonstrated. Differences between ADVPs’ configurations were analyzed through sensitivity analysis with the intention to calculate and compare any discrepancies in the velocity measurements for all the three measured velocity components: streamwise u, spanwise v and vertical w collected on two characteristic flume cross-sections. The results show that each parameter change has a significant effect on the measured values of each velocity component when compared to the Target Configuration (TC). The largest root-mean-square-error (RMSE) is observed when TPS is changed, followed by CS and PA. Absolute RMSE calculated for TPS change from 4 mm to 1 mm is, on average, 6.30 cm/s, 0.90 cm/s, and 0.82 cm/s for velocity components u, v and w, respectively. Absolute RMSE calculated for CS change from 1 mm to 4 mm is, on average, 4.49 cm/s, 0.88 cm/s, and 0.71 cm/s for velocity components u, v and w, respectively. Absolute RMSE calculated for PA change from Adaptive to Max interval is, on average, 4.04 cm/s, 0.63 cm/s, and 0.68 cm/s for velocity components u, v and w, respectively. For a change in all parameters, RMSE is greater for the cross-section downstream of the pier than for the approach cross-section: on average, 90%, 57% and 54% for a change in the PA, TPS, and CS, respectively.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Fluids
Fluids Engineering-Mechanical Engineering
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
10.50%
发文量
326
审稿时长
12 weeks
期刊最新文献
Deeper Flow Behavior Explanation of Temperature Effects on the Fluid Dynamic inside a Tundish Continuous Eddy Simulation vs. Resolution-Imposing Simulation Methods for Turbulent Flows Application of Machine Learning Algorithms in Predicting Rheological Behavior of BN-diamond/Thermal Oil Hybrid Nanofluids A Spectral/hp-Based Stabilized Solver with Emphasis on the Euler Equations Quantitative Color Schlieren for an H2–O2 Exhaust Jet Developing in Air
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1